Poll: Newby ghost photo - ever proved a fake?

Do you think the Newby Ghost photo is real or fake?

  • Real

  • Fake


Results are only viewable after voting.
Who decided that a faded image must be a ghost ?

How many of you claiming it's a ghost have actually seen a ghost with your own eyes ?
Seems pretty bizarre to just claim ghost as if you know for certain they exist.

Congrats on obviously not reading the thread.
 
You say this as if this is a less likely scenario than it actually being a ghost....

I say this as it being an incredibly unlikely series of events of the planets aligning and a drop of water and reflections of light just somehow managing to create an image of something associated with the building. Not only does it resemble a monk but the "water drop" also seemed to stay pretty true to body proportions for something of that height and also nicely compensated for the robe at the bottom literally wrapping itself around the step.

dot dot dot dot


I'm not saying its a ghost, but I'm also not buying into some theory from some random internet "expert" about a drop of water and reflections of light just magically combining to create something suitable for the venue it was photographed in. There's some explanation for it but so far its yet to be determined from what I've read.
 
Last edited:
I promise that when I die and become a ghost I will try and act as normal as possible and when talking to a Psychic I will speak in a clear manner so the Psychic doesn't act as though they're deaf.
I also promise that I will say something relevant and not 'What about that time you lost a shoe' or other such rubbish.
 
how come nearly all ghost photos are from before digital film...

more cameras than ever but seemingly there are far fewer images
 
how come nearly all ghost photos are from before digital film...

more cameras than ever but seemingly there are far fewer images

More videos though which are easier to fake than ever. Just have to have a squint on YouTube to see loads of them.
 
To be honest my vote would be on double exposure for that one.

Im not a believer in ghosts but I believe there could be somethig to the whole ghost thing but this photo has that "To good to be true" factor that makes it hard to believe.

Totally agree. With film it would be so easy, yet impossible to "prove" false.

Just work out the exposure. Halve it. Stick the camera on a tripod and shoot one shot with the person in a costume. Get person to move and shoot another shot without moving the film. Perfect exposure of the background and a ghostly figure that could never be "disproved".
 
how come nearly all ghost photos are from before digital film...

more cameras than ever but seemingly there are far fewer images

Actually, there are far, far more now. It's just that not many of them that have become well known.
(Apologies for the double post.)
 
There was a picture of about 4 or 5 girls the other month on here and there was a little girl hiding between their legs. Think all of them are Drd, but like you say, in the 1960's photoshop must have been v1.0. must have been very tiring to edit the photo.

No editing required, I could replicate that photo no problem, even with a single exposure.
 
Actually, there are far, far more now. It's just that not many of them that have become well known.
(Apologies for the double post.)

Would be interested to see some more.

No editing required, I could replicate that photo no problem, even with a single exposure.

Do so, that could be your next project.

how come nearly all ghost photos are from before digital film...

more cameras than ever but seemingly there are far fewer images

They've just been driven more to the sidelines with everyone screaming 'fake' on the internet. Everyone's an expert here.
 
Last edited:
Would be interested to see some more.

There are literally thousands. Here is a site called Ghost Study. It's terribly presented (think of the internet from 1995), but the photographs are submitted by real people from around the world, and there are a lot of them. In my opinion, a great many of the snaps are pareidolic in nature or simply suffering from the normal effects of the 'failures' of digital cameras. Interesting, nonetheless.

Ok, you sort out a church and some sheets and I will :)

Genuine question: could you replicate the effect in such a way that another photographer would not be able to conclusively say it was faked?
 
are there any better scans of this anywhere?

They all seem to be scanned from a newspaper or magazine print.. ie blocky and pixelated.
 
Genuine question: could you replicate the effect in such a way that another photographer would not be able to conclusively say it was faked?

Yes, a single exposure long enough with a subject still enough would allow you to duplicate it without leaving any trace of movement when they leave the frame. Or you could simply cover the lens whilst they move in and out of shot.
 
Back
Top Bottom